quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm all for following different tracks (as long as it is not 'fantasy').

Another 'what if' would be the Japanese NOT building the Musashi and scrapping it to build 2-3 new carriers (Shokaku/Zuikakau class?). Or even better, giving the Japanese a few more shipyards and shipyard points to produce quicker and earlier. Same for aircraft factories and the amount of new pilots (at albeit lower starting ratings).
_________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm all for following different tracks (as long as it is not 'fantasy').

Another 'what if' would be the Japanese NOT building the Musashi and scrapping it to build 2-3 new carriers (Shokaku/Zuikakau class?). Or even better, giving the Japanese a few more shipyards and shipyard points to produce quicker and earlier. Same for aircraft factories and the amount of new pilots (at albeit lower starting ratings).
_________________

Two or three more Shokaku's in place of the Musashi IS fantasy..., unless you want them without any air groups. Trained carrier air groups are an expensive proposition in time and money, both to create and to maintain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm all for following different tracks (as long as it is not 'fantasy').

Another 'what if' would be the Japanese NOT building the Musashi and scrapping it to build 2-3 new carriers (Shokaku/Zuikakau class?). Or even better, giving the Japanese a few more shipyards and shipyard points to produce quicker and earlier. Same for aircraft factories and the amount of new pilots (at albeit lower starting ratings).
_________________

Two or three more Shokaku's in place of the Musashi IS fantasy..., unless you want them without any air groups. Trained carrier air groups are an expensive proposition in time and money, both to create and to maintain.

Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, but that is what I was thinking when speaking about more new pilots at lower ratings.

The Japanese selection system was not in sync with their pilot requirements. Had they been more realistic, they would have produced pilots with overall lower ratings at the outset and put them into operational use, similar to the US and UK system. I don't see any 'fantasy' in that. The carrier air groups could have been available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm all for following different tracks (as long as it is not 'fantasy').

Another 'what if' would be the Japanese NOT building the Musashi and scrapping it to build 2-3 new carriers (Shokaku/Zuikakau class?). Or even better, giving the Japanese a few more shipyards and shipyard points to produce quicker and earlier. Same for aircraft factories and the amount of new pilots (at albeit lower starting ratings).
_________________

Two or three more Shokaku's in place of the Musashi IS fantasy..., unless you want them without any air groups. Trained carrier air groups are an expensive proposition in time and money, both to create and to maintain.

Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, but that is what I was thinking when speaking about more new pilots at lower ratings.

The Japanese selection system was not in sync with their pilot requirements. Had they been more realistic, they would have produced pilots with overall lower ratings at the outset and put them into operational use, similar to the US and UK system. I don't see any 'fantasy' in that. The carrier air groups could have been available.

And what I meant was that a Carrier Air Group is a continually wasting asset, even in peace time. In wartime, any Air Group (unless you keep it grounded and lose the training "edge"), it needs to be totally replaced at LEAST once a year. And Carrier Air Groups have the highest non-combat attrition of all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do people think of adding conversions to the database which were not historically carried out? For instance if Omaha class CLs could be converted into CVLs during the game? Or converting older cruisers into AA cruisers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Speaking of alternate history, here are a few German plane types the Japanese did show interest in, but never actually acquired...or in some cases could not mass produce after acquiring units to study:

1. 1 Ju-87 A-1 Stuka (Called the Ju-87 K-1) for testing
2. 1 FW-190 A-5 for testing
3. 5 Bf-109 E-7 for testing
4. ~25 He-100 D-0 (also called He-113) Fighters, these were to be put into production for the IJN, but the required tooling failed to arrive following the start of WWII.
5. 1 FW-200 V10, ordered but not delivered due to the start of WWII.
6. 44 HE-111F, order cancelled in 1938.
7. 30 He-112B used for training and testing
8. Plans for Me-163
9. 1 Me-210 for testing
10. Plans for Ta-152
11. Do-217 (Japanese wanted one for evaluation, but delivery was blocked by the Luftwaffe).
12. Plans for Ju-88 ASW version...eventually led to indigenous Q1W Tokai
13. License to produce the Ju-390 A-1 was acquired, but plans were not delivered prior to Germany's surrender.
14. License and Blueprints for Ju-388 Acquired in 08-1944...none produced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do people think of adding conversions to the database which were not historically carried out? For instance if Omaha class CLs could be converted into CVLs during the game? Or converting older cruisers into AA cruisers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do people think of adding conversions to the database which were not historically carried out? For instance if Omaha class CLs could be converted into CVLs during the game? Or converting older cruisers into AA cruisers?

To my mind it depends how much the conversions diverge from reality. Would it actually be possible to turn the Omahas into CVLs for example? Like a few others on the bosrds I'd be more interested in the Commonwealth nations.

1. D-Class CL into CLAA (similar to HMS Delhi)
2. Refitting the Australian V-Class DDs into LRE ships.
3. A partial rebuild of Repulse.
4. A rebuild of other County cruisers to the same standard as HMS London.

I've got a few other ideas, but they're all firmly in the "what-if" category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Speaking of alternate history, here are a few German plane types the Japanese did show interest in, but never actually acquired...or in some cases could not mass produce after acquiring units to study:

1. 1 Ju-87 A-1 Stuka (Called the Ju-87 K-1) for testing
2. 1 FW-190 A-5 for testing
3. 5 Bf-109 E-7 for testing
4. ~25 He-100 D-0 (also called He-113) Fighters, these were to be put into production for the IJN, but the required tooling failed to arrive following the start of WWII.
5. 1 FW-200 V10, ordered but not delivered due to the start of WWII.
6. 44 HE-111F, order cancelled in 1938.
7. 30 He-112B used for training and testing
8. Plans for Me-163
9. 1 Me-210 for testing
10. Plans for Ta-152
11. Do-217 (Japanese wanted one for evaluation, but delivery was blocked by the Luftwaffe).
12. Plans for Ju-88 ASW version...eventually led to indigenous Q1W Tokai
13. License to produce the Ju-390 A-1 was acquired, but plans were not delivered prior to Germany's surrender.
14. License and Blueprints for Ju-388 Acquired in 08-1944...none produced.

The problem with all these is that Japanese Industry had a real problem with building and maintaining the high tolerance German engines. Just look at the problems they had with the Tony. And the situation just got worse as the war continued and the industry had to try and expand from too small a base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
...For instance, I've created a CVL conversion of the Omaha class cruisers which, though never implemented, was in fact once thought over by the US Navy. Why not create a "bind" in the editor whereby the player could convert Omaha class CLs to CVLs IN GAME? Is that any more objectionable than creating binds for the Japanese to turn Fuso into a flight deck battleship and what not? It gives the player a little more flexibility over his building program and if players can already buildout ships which were historically never refitted during the war, then why not give the player more room to convert different ships into different types of refits?

Just a thought. I'm curious what the strictly history buffs think of the idea? [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
...For instance, I've created a CVL conversion of the Omaha class cruisers which, though never implemented, was in fact once thought over by the US Navy. Why not create a "bind" in the editor whereby the player could convert Omaha class CLs to CVLs IN GAME? Is that any more objectionable than creating binds for the Japanese to turn Fuso into a flight deck battleship and what not? It gives the player a little more flexibility over his building program and if players can already buildout ships which were historically never refitted during the war, then why not give the player more room to convert different ships into different types of refits?

Just a thought. I'm curious what the strictly history buffs think of the idea? [:)]

I have no problem with conversions like the Omaha-class CVL or CLAA when they are backed up by real data. For the US ships, I think that this data is contained in books like Friedman's US Cruisers, and is based on real design studies made by the US Navy. These will probably be very expensive conversions similar in cost to those performed on the West Virginia, California or Tennessee. There was a reason that these conversions were not carried out in wartime, and the cost should reflect that.

For the British ships, where there were other C-class and D-class (?) cruisers converted to a CLAA standard, that should also be an option, just not an inexpensive one. I am not sure if the British shipyards would have enough spare capacity to make such a conversion, or if the Americans would have diverted the effort away from their own conversions. These were cruisers that were older than the Omahas that the US did not take the effort to convert even when they were already in the shipyard for extensive repairs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
...For instance, I've created a CVL conversion of the Omaha class cruisers which, though never implemented, was in fact once thought over by the US Navy. Why not create a "bind" in the editor whereby the player could convert Omaha class CLs to CVLs IN GAME? Is that any more objectionable than creating binds for the Japanese to turn Fuso into a flight deck battleship and what not? It gives the player a little more flexibility over his building program and if players can already buildout ships which were historically never refitted during the war, then why not give the player more room to convert different ships into different types of refits?

Just a thought. I'm curious what the strictly history buffs think of the idea? [:)]

I Believe BuShips nixed any CVL conversion of the Omaha's because the hulls were too narrow and the displacement too small to be practical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
...For instance, I've created a CVL conversion of the Omaha class cruisers which, though never implemented, was in fact once thought over by the US Navy. Why not create a "bind" in the editor whereby the player could convert Omaha class CLs to CVLs IN GAME? Is that any more objectionable than creating binds for the Japanese to turn Fuso into a flight deck battleship and what not? It gives the player a little more flexibility over his building program and if players can already buildout ships which were historically never refitted during the war, then why not give the player more room to convert different ships into different types of refits?

Just a thought. I'm curious what the strictly history buffs think of the idea? [:)]

I Believe BuShips nixed any CVL conversion of the Omaha's because the hulls were too narrow and the displacement too small to be practical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Gary they had enough yard space to convert the clevelands to independance class, so putting in 1 or 2 of the omaha should not be that big a deal. An alternative would be to allow more of the clevelands to be converted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Gary I have to agree with you on your frist statement. I like that the devs gave us a chance to play a game like this. I would like a little more wiggle room with somethings. I haven't made it that far into the games vs AI but am playing GC in stock and Alt Scn. If you look at it the IJN player gets to mess around with production in several areas. So why can't the Allies.

doc

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Gary I have to agree with you on your frist statement. I like that the devs gave us a chance to play a game like this. I would like a little more wiggle room with somethings. I haven't made it that far into the games vs AI but am playing GC in stock and Alt Scn. If you look at it the IJN player gets to mess around with production in several areas. So why can't the Allies.

doc